On April 22, 2010 (letter dated April 20, 2010), the Department of Public Instruction (DPI) received a complaint under state and federal special education law from XXXXX against the Plum City School District. This is the departments decision regarding that complaint. The issues are whether the district, during the 2009-2010 school year, properly afforded parents the opportunity to participate in an individualized education program (IEP) team meeting, provided a copy of the IEP in a timely manner, and properly implemented the IEP.
On December 22, 2009, an IEP team meeting was held to review and revise the students IEP. The district made three attempts to contact the parents through a December 14 phone call, a December 15 letter of invitation sent by mail, and a December 17 letter of invitation sent by way of the student. The parents and student did not attend. After the meeting on December 22, the parent called the principal and indicated interest in attending a rescheduled IEP team meeting. On January 5, 2010, a follow-up letter was sent to the parents inviting them to attend an IEP team meeting on either January 20 or 21. On January 11, a letter of invitation was sent to the parents for a January 20, 2010 IEP team meeting and a follow-up phone call was made on January 18 reminding the parents of the meeting. On January 20, 2010, an IEP team meeting was held and the student, special education teacher, and staff members attended. On January 21, another IEP team meeting was held to discuss the content of the current IEP, and the parents and student, including the required team member, were in attendance. The district must take steps to ensure that one or both of the parents of a child with a disability are present at each IEP team meeting or are afforded the opportunity to participate, including notifying parent of the meetings early enough to ensure that they will have an opportunity to attend, and scheduling the meeting at a mutually agreed on time and place. The district properly afforded the parents the opportunity to participate in their childs IEP team meeting.
The parents stated they did not receive a copy of the January 21, 2010 IEP. The district stated a copy of the IEP was sent by mail on February 12, March 19 and March 22. The district also indicated the student received a copy of the January 21 IEP on March 23. The district must give the parents a copy of the childs IEP at no cost to the parent and within a reasonable amount of time. The district properly provided a copy of the IEP in a timely manner to the parents.
The district also properly implemented the students IEP with regard to the supplemental aids and services. The student was provided the supplemental aids and services as indicated in the current IEP. The special education teacher made regular checks with the students teachers responsible for implementing the students accommodations and confirmed the services were provided.
This concludes our review of this complaint, which we are closing.
//signed CST/SJP 6/18/10
Carolyn Stanford Taylor
Assistant State Superintendent
Division for Learning Support: Equity and Advocacy